Fwd: [MacPorts] #48088: proposed improvements to port:qt5-mac

[René J.V. Bertin]

As discussed earlier off-list, here's a trac ticket for discussing improvements to port:qt5-mac .
It's even received a nice and easy-to-remember number, 48088 .

R.


----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: [MacPorts] #48088: proposed improvements to port:qt5-mac
Date: Wednesday June 17 2015, 14:43:25
From: MacPorts <noreply at macports.org>
To: rjvbertin at gmail.com, macports-tickets at lists.macosforge.org
CC: michaelld at macports.org

#48088: proposed improvements to port:qt5-mac
-------------------------+--------------------------------
 Reporter:  rjvbertin@…  |      Owner:  macports-tickets@…
     Type:  enhancement  |     Status:  new
 Priority:  Normal       |  Milestone:
Component:  ports        |    Version:
 Keywords:               |       Port:  qt5-mac
-------------------------+--------------------------------
 Following discussion on the -devel ML, I'm opening this ticket as an
 upbeat to improving the qt5-mac port with the changes I have been making
 to it over the past half year.

 First up: changes to the Portgroup file targeting the install locations,
 presented as a diff against mcalhoun's current PortGroup and as the raw
 file (because a number of changes are simply expressions moved around for
 what I find better readability).
 The effect is that Qt's binary things are installed under
 `${prefix}/libexec/qt5` (instead of ditto/qt5-mac), except for the plugins
 which go with the other shared things in a directory under
 `${prefix}/share/qt5`. Headerfiles go under `${prefix}/include/qt5`. This
 scheme is based on the well-tested scheme used by Linux distros (Ubuntu in
 my case) and allows Qt to present `QT_INSTALL_PREFIX` and `QT_HOST_PREFIX`
 as `${prefix}` which I think is preferable.
 I did try to install everything into ${prefix}/libexec/qt4 when I started
 making the Qt4 port concurrent, but that didn't work out very well,
 possibly because of the different QT_INSTALL_PREFIX and QT_HOST_PREFIX so
 I went with the layout shown in the attached PortGroup. That also
 minimises changes w.r.t. the previous, exclusive installation layout which
 I think preferable; undoubtedly an argument carrying more weight for Qt4
 than for Qt5, but I also think it would be far preferable if both ports
 share the same layout principle.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/48088>
MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for OS X
-----------------------------------------